Le Tour du monde en 80 jours

"Around the World in 80 Days" is not luckily Jackie's worst film, that is still "Tuxedo".

What makes 80 Days such a taunting movie is its unevenness. The film switches between light-hearted to serious and even between various styles of comedy, from Jackie's classic slapstick, to witty, to vain, to gross-out and even Python-style comedy.

As far as fight-scenes go, they are well choreographed and Jackie can luckily still kick ass. There were some parts of the film that didn't make a whole lot of sense and because of the massiveness of the plot it feels rather long. Luckily the changes in style keep the viewer on their toes but the climax was not very satisfying however.

All in all, Around the World in 80 Days is an amusing film to watch. It has both great and not-so-great moments and may be a little too unconventional for Jackie's fans, but a good movie none the less.

I have watched the original version of this film a few months back and think that was way better then this one. I thought some of the jokes were pretty lame and unoriginal. Steve Coogan particularly doesn't seem to fit in a comedic role. The cameo roles were ok but nothing amazing. I found Arnold's cameo as a Turkish Monarch rather drab and I thought they should have done some more. Jackie Chan as usual out did himself with some of his stunts. Making some ordinary items into weapons are just great.

SOme of the effects were OK especially the shots showing the different cities they went to. A little to much "computery" but none the less good enough.

The ending I thought was a serious disappointment. Instead of ending on a high it went down with a big THUD!

Many reviews here complaining that the movie is not faithful to the book... oh, please, it's a lot of boring people in today's world.

I'm 55 years old, I read the book when I was young, I saw the movie with David Niven, and I say this version with Jackie Chan is extremely fun and cute.

"Ah, but it's not true to the book at all." And? If you want to see the same thing, go read the book or look for the version with David Niven, which is more faithful, but is a pain in the ass to watch. I would even understand this type of complaint if that was the purpose of the film, but it is clearly not, the proposal here is to make a light, fun comedy that brings good feelings, only superficially based on the book by Jules Verne, and this objective was achieved in my opinion. I had fun during the 2 hours of projection and it was worth my time invested.

Rating 7 out of 10.

The film deals about a Victorian English gentleman (Steve Coogan),an inventor of fantastic inventions called Phileas Fogg and a Chinese thief(Jacke Chan)named Passapart.He takes a wager that he can circle the globe around the world in 80 days.They are accompanied by an enticing,likable artist(Cecil De France).Just before the time they leave a valuable jade Buddha is robbed and the authorities and president(Jim Broadbent) of Bank of England believe that Fogg is the guilty and they set out after him.Using various means of transport like balloons,trains,steamer,flying machine and following a way goes to Paris,Turkey,India ,China,USA, they are trying back to London.In the traveling they know to historical personages like Wright brothers(Owen,Luke Wilson),Colonel Kitchener(Ian McNiece),Lord Salisbury,Lord Rhodes and even the Queen Victoria(Kathy Bates). This funny picture is plenty of adventures,humor,action packed,rip-roaring and spectacular outdoors.From the start to the final the entertainment and amusement is continued.Jackie Chan,as always ,utilizes his astonishing martial arts(without computer generator) abilities along with Sammo Hung(Martial Law) to defend the friends against the enemies and from the many risks,odds during the dangerous trip.Appear a variety of cameos by known actors as Arnold Schwarzenegger,Mark Addy(steamer captain),John Cleese(a police)Luke,Owen Wilson.. .The colorfully cinematography is well reflected on sensational landscapes by cameraman Phil Meheux. Lively music by Trevor Ravin.The film is correctly directed by Frank Coraci.The motion picture will like to Jacke Chan fans and adventures cinema enthusiastic. Anothers version about the Jules Verne novel are :the classic by Michael Anderson with David Niven and Cantinflas,and the TV adaptation by Buzz Kulik with Pierce Brosnan and Eric Idle.

The credits roll, and I sarcastically turn to my friend, and whisper, "Dude, 3 screenwriters, and they're all named Dave."

Oddly enough, that turned out to pretty much sum up the whole movie.

It's not BAD. It leans toward good, except it's not so much a remake as it is a Disney-fication. Like 'Cinderella' and 'The Little Mermaid' before it, Disney takes the title of the story and a few major characters, and just turns it into a theme-park attraction with emotional and dramatic resonance to match.

Frank Coraci is solely responsible for making Adam Sandler's star stick. "Happy Gilmore" was cute, but it didn't have the style of a REAL movie, like his two films with Coraci, "The Wedding Singer," and "The Waterboy." Those films work as FILMS, not just Adam Sandler vehicles.

I had high hopes for this one, and for that reason, it splatted. Amusing lines here and there, and great kung-fu choreography ruined by the same poor photography that screwed up "Rush Hour." This is martial arts. DO NOT shoot your actors from the waist up. Things happen too fast, people are moving in too many directions. So in "80 Days," like in "Rush Hour," I had a sense that there was martial arts taking place, but could barely see it. Coraci does pull the camera back a few times, down to the ankles maybe, so a few scenes are reasonably well-shot. But not as well as they could have been. In fact, the entire movie feels rushed, like they're trying to cram the whole script into the alotted time frame. Some "Indiana Jones"-type pacing would have worked wonders, even if it made the movie 30 minutes longer. We're still talking about the book 100 years later for a reason, you know.

What could have been fun for everyone turns into Disney-video wackiness that will barely appeal to anyone over 13, and not at all to any fan of Jules Verne. And thus the old rule applies once again.... the more screenwriters, the worse the film. Even if they're all named Dave.